Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 360 posts

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#301

Post by JacobJans »

nothis wrote: post #182
Dwolb wrote: post #76

That’s just insane. This is a great accomplishment for NYT but I’m worried about what it means for the rest of the industry. NYT switching its business model has to be one of the most public and well-executed digital transformations of an old company ever. If NYT is the best at this and can only turn 24M a quarter, almost everyone else must be absolutely bleeding. This would confirm most of the newspapers out there a…

There's just too many vital services that can't function with just ad financing. It's so obvious, that I have a slight hope we'll see new business models to accommodate for that. The problem is that I don't read a hundred articles a month by the NYT, I read maybe 5. And then 5 others on 30 different sites, each. What I can imagine is a "digital pass" kinda thing that lets you access a massive amount of content for a…

> divides it among members by what you use most

The problem with this is that it assumes the value is proportionate to how much time you spend on something.

The value of good reporting is independent of the amount of time you spend reading the reporting.

That's why subscriptions make sense; you are supporting the company in a predictable fashion, which lets them have predictable amounts of resources, which ultimately supports the reporters doing the job.

I subscribe to the New York Times; and I'm happy to pay the same amount whether I read ten articles a month or one hundred. Why? Because I want to support the work they're doing. It's the same reason I subscribe to the Washington Post. It's also the same reason people should subscribe to their local newspapers. If nobody is reporting on local issues, then who is going to be keeping local government accountable?

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#302

Post by Paul-ish »

madza wrote: post #97
cm2187 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the Financial Time is starting to drift in that direction...

I’m not alone then. I moved my subscription from the NYT to FT looking for a less politically slanted product but the tone at the FT is definitely going in the same direction. Any suggestions? P.s I have to phone the FT to cancel my subscription apparently.

The Economist is good.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#303

Post by azinman2 »

conanbatt wrote: post #300
Dwolb wrote: post #76

That’s just insane. This is a great accomplishment for NYT but I’m worried about what it means for the rest of the industry. NYT switching its business model has to be one of the most public and well-executed digital transformations of an old company ever. If NYT is the best at this and can only turn 24M a quarter, almost everyone else must be absolutely bleeding. This would confirm most of the newspapers out there a…

OTOH news has been replaced by social media, which is cheaper. I do not see this demise as a bad thing. Diversity is a goal better achieved by individuals, not by a big number of large newspapers. Also newspapers have been for a long time a business not particularly profitable on its sales, but on how its used to leverage other businesses. Failing Newspapers always find investors even if the biz is bad.

Social media? So just anyone with no credibility, oversight, quality control, resources, connections, or training?

It’s great that individuals can funnel up stories that would otherwise be buried — but that’s no replacement for true journalism. Journalism hardly perfect, but does have a much, much higher bar.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#304

Post by spookthesunset »

douglaswlance wrote: post #295
Dwolb wrote: post #76

That’s just insane. This is a great accomplishment for NYT but I’m worried about what it means for the rest of the industry. NYT switching its business model has to be one of the most public and well-executed digital transformations of an old company ever. If NYT is the best at this and can only turn 24M a quarter, almost everyone else must be absolutely bleeding. This would confirm most of the newspapers out there a…

Instead of 50 professional reports, we'll have millions of independent journalists that aren't tangled in a web of multi-national conglomerate corporations. We'll develop consensus systems that will be better than the old system. Trust in humanity's ability to adapt.

> We'll develop consensus systems that will be better than the old system.

Oh yeah, so the blockchain will somehow save this? (cough)

The best "consensus" system we've got for social media / forums is the upvote / downvote and that is a horrible indicator of truthfulness / factfullness / quality of something. Upvote / downvote is only an indicator of the prevailing groupthink on any given forum -- it is not a substitute for a reality check.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#305

Post by spookthesunset »

jkalo wrote: post #238
eksemplar wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worry some that people have shifted their focus to unedited and often fairly anonymous sources for news. HN is honestly a good example as well. I’ve written numerous upvoted posts sharing information about the Scandinavian public sector and tech-management, but I’m not a vetted source. I mean, you can’t even tell if I’m Scandinavian from HN. My squabbling is relatively harmless of course, but it’s not always lik…

True. I think ppl think the Russians or who ever have to create content farms to spread fud. All bad actors have to do is find lunatics with fringe views and keep upvoting. Media and social media are trained like lab rats to pick up anything that is getting views and amplify it. The underlying architecture has to change. The feedback mechanisms that drive this must be slowed down or removed.

> All bad actors have to do is find lunatics with fringe views and keep upvoting.

Or just get bots / click farmers to do all the work. The crackpots will latch on eventually...

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#306

Post by spookthesunset »

swebs wrote: post #297
joekrill wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They also show ads even if you have a subscription, which sounds very backward to me. So are you also cancelling your cable subscription, any magazine subscriptions, physical newspaper subscriptions, no longer driving on toll roads with billboard...? I'm not saying it's right, or good, or valid--but the standard practice, for as long as I can remember, for most mediums, is to still show ads for things you pay for.…

>So are you also cancelling your cable subscription Yep >any magazine subscriptions Yep >physical newspaper subscriptions, Yep Don't forget about Hulu. Ads are my #1 reason for canceling most paid services.

You are an outlier though....

(but I must admit, if I did pull the plug on cable the primary reason (besides we really don't use it much) would be the fact I pay big bucks to watch a fuckton of advertising)

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#308

Post by bjourne »

repolfx wrote: post #269
Dwolb wrote: post #76

That’s just insane. This is a great accomplishment for NYT but I’m worried about what it means for the rest of the industry. NYT switching its business model has to be one of the most public and well-executed digital transformations of an old company ever. If NYT is the best at this and can only turn 24M a quarter, almost everyone else must be absolutely bleeding. This would confirm most of the newspapers out there a…

Instead of 50 professional reporters confirmed writing about an event, we’ll have 5 That's pretty what we already have actually. The amount of original reporting done on a major news story is far, far lower than the number of newspapers out there. This study from 2010 is useful: http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/02/the-googlechina-hacking-cas... Out of the 121 distinct versions of last week’s story about tracing Google’s…

Trump hated "the Media" long before he became president. The idea that "the Media" are anti-Trump cheerleaders need some corrobating evidence because otherwise it is bullshit.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#309

Post by iscrewyou »

greenpizza13 wrote: post #291

I purchased an annual digital subscription and I'm never even logged into NYT. I get my news from various sources, including NYT, but I don't go to NYT for news, it comes to me through Reddit and Apple news. I consider the subscription more of a donation, because we are living in a time where the news media has to be supported -- we can't have it die. I wonder if my use case resonates with other people my age.

I’m in the same boat. I open the app maybe once or twice a week. But I support their work and effort. I’ll pay more once my student loans are done.

Re: New York Times Co. Reports $24M Profit, Thanks to Digital Subscribers

#310

Post by crazygringo »

mey wrote: post #8

As a paid sub, really don't like that they still attempt to blast you with ads.

Yeah that's a tough one for me.

I hate it too, it seems "off" with the rest of the internet. But on the other hand, print subscriptions have always included ads too, so not really sure what's right.

Post reply on HN